1. The brief facts that led to filing of the present appeal are as under:

3

In terms of guidelines issued by Ministry of Power (MoP) for determination of tariff by bidding process for procurement of power by distribution licensees, on 18.05.2009, Respondent No.3- MSEDCL issued a request for proposal for procurement of 2000 MW (+30%-20%) for a period of 25 years on long term basis. In that process, the following bidders were qualified:

i. Emco Energy Ltd. ( 200 MW @2.879 Rs/kWh) ii. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Amravati) ( 1200 MW @ 3.260 Rs/kWh) iii. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd (1200 MW @ 3.280 Rs/kWh) iv. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Nashik) (950 MW @ 3.450 Rs/kWh v. Wardha Power Company Ltd. (675 MW @ 3.620 Rs/kWh)

1. These two matters have come up against almost identical backdrop of proceedings recorded by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to variously as "TNERC" or "State Commission" or "Commission"), the Appellant in first captioned appeal being Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited, which was the petitioner in D.R.P. No. 19 of 2012, the second captioned appeal having been instituted by Samalpatti Power Company Private Limited, petitioner in D.R.P. No. 16 of 2012.

2. It appears that the said two petitions had come up for consideration before the State Commission around the same point of time, the hearing having been concluded, the orders having been reserved by similar proceedings recorded on 21.12.2018. Noticeably at that stage, the State Commission was functional in full strength with the Chairman and two Members in position. Before orders could be passed in either of the said matters, one of the members (Mr. G. Rajagopal) Appeal No. 127 of 2019 and Appeal No. 146 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 demitted office in January, 2019. Meanwhile, certain written submissions had been placed on record by the parties which were respondents before the State Commission (respondents in these appeals as well). Along with the said written submissions, certain documents were submitted to which exception was taken by the appellants primarily on the ground that it was new material, taking on board the same amounting to (as per their contention) amendment of the pleadings, it being statedly impermissible at the stage at which it had been tendered for record. Since the Registry of the Commission seems to have returned such material upon objections being taken, the respondents herein were constrained to file applications - i.e. IA No. 1 of 2019 in the first captioned matter and IA No. 2 of 2019 in the other matter.

1. This Appeal is filed by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited challenging the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "APERC/Commission").

2. The brief facts which led to filing of the present Appeal are as under:

(i) 2nd Respondent - M/s SNJ Sugars & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd.

is a sugar plant with co-generation power plant having capacity of 20 MW. It uses bagasse as a fuel for power generation. It approached the Non-conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (known as "NEDCAP") for setting up of power plant and accordingly it got the approval on 07.04.2000.

1. The Appellant West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) has come up with the present appeal challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Central Commission) in Petition No. 298/MP/2018 which had been instituted by the Respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) seeking declaration as to right to recover a sum aggregating Rs.111,74,47,434 Crores towards principal and delayed payment surcharge at the rate of 1.5% per month as on 31.08.2019 along with further interest till payment. It appears that the Appellant had resisted the claim by raising the issue of limitation pleading that the Appeal No. 20 of 2020 Page 2 of 5 petition of DVC could not be entertained, it being time barred.

Australian celebrities are marking Mother's Day in very different ways this year, as coronavirus restrictions keeps many families apart. 

2. The petitioners were appointed as Associate professors in the Department of Surgery of the 2nd respondent. They have completed their Masters degree in their respective subjects and were recruited by the 2nd respondent in the year 2005. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a notification on 10.07.2008 calling for applications for appointment of Associate Professors. The educational qualification for the said post as per notification are as under :

"5. EDUCATION QUALIFICATION :- For the post of Associate Professor :-

1.He/She must possess requisite recognized :4: Post graduate qualification in the respective subject.

2. Respondents No.1 to 4 are the State and the statutory authorities who are empowered to and authorized to sanction layouts including private layouts and vested with the obligation to ensure that the said layouts are formed and administered in accordance with the WP Nos.67289-291 OF 2010 5 applicable laws including the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('KTCP Act' for short), as also Karnataka Urban Development Act.

3. The concerned plots and/or the layout fall within the purview and jurisdiction of Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority ('HDUDA' for short). The said Authority coming within the purview of KTCP Act.

2. Petitioner claims to be appointed as a Lecturer in Urdu in the 8th respondent Institution viz., Nehru Arts, Science and Commerce Degree College, Ghantikeri, on fulltime basis and has been working therein for nearly ten years. The petitioner claims to have passed M.A. in Urdu and has worked as Guest Lecturer for 3 years in P.G.Department of Urdu and Persian, Karnataka University, Dharward; 6 years as an Academic Counsellor in MANUU; and 3 years as a Lecturer in Political Science in Anjuman Women's College, Hubli. He claims that he has been working from the year 1998 with 8th respondent, from the year 1998 till 2002 worked as Part-time Lecturer and from 2002 on fulltime basis.

2. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and formulated following substantial questions of law on 26.02.2020, which reads:

"(i) Whether under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 prior to and from 01.04.2012 appellant would be entitled to seek refund without reference to the limitation? Or

(ii) Whether the time prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be applicable for claiming refund of CENVAT Credit?"

6

CEA No.35/2018 came to be admitted on 23.07.2019 to consider the substantial questions of law indicated thereunder.

2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Vishwajith Rai for Sri. Jayaprakash K.N. for the accused- appellant and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under;

The first informant, Sri. K.Y. Raghavendra Rao is a resident of Vinoba Nagar in Davanagere. He has a daughter and a son. His daughter is a minor. When she 3 was studying in I PUC, accused No.1 used to follow her and tease her. He used to roam in front of her house. She had informed the matter to her parents. In spite of advising the accused, he did not stop following her. The matter was brought to the notice of one Leela Kumaraswamy, working in an NGO. However, accused No.1 did not cooperate when she had called him over phone to enquire about the matter. The accused was threatening the victim girl to listen to his words or to face dire consequences.

2. One Mr.Ganapati had filed a complaint, which was registered by Gokarna P.S. Crime No.27/2010, upon investigation the Investigating Officer of Kumata P.S. had presented a charge sheet on 25.07.2011. Thereafter, the :4: investigation was continued and an additional charge sheet was filed on 28.07.2012 for the aforesaid offences.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 12, who stood trial before JMFC Court had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge in the said proceedings. The application was opposed by the prosecution. The JMFC after hearing both parties by order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the application filed by the accused.

2. The case of the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet is that every year Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) conducts entrance exam for Post Graduation studies in different disciplines of medical and dental sciences, which examination is held at different centres, one such centre in the year 2011 was designated to be that of Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences (VIMS).

CRL.P. No.102200 OF 2019 :4:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 Dr.Vinaya Prasanna was serving in the teaching line in VIMS had allegedly conspired with others to adopt malpractices to help certain candidates to get better results. On the date of examination, i.e. 30.01.2011 accused No.1 illegally opened the question paper in his custody, took photographs of the question paper using his digital camera, sent the digital camera through accused No.1 to accused No.17, accused No.27 who was allegedly a computer operator took a print out of the question paper from the digital camera by connecting it to the computer present in the residence of accused No.17. On that basis, accused Nos.6 to 15 prepared answers to the questions, entered the said answers in the same computer and copy chits in the form of print outs were prepared in respect of the question paper. Accused No.7, in turn, CRL.P. No.102200 OF 2019 :5: handed the chits back to accused No.1, who circulated them to selected students viz., accused Nos.16 to 26, who copied the answers from the chits and managed to get high rank in the examination.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with a permission to pursue Crl. P. No.2208/2020.

Permission is granted. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

JUDGE snc*

2. It is stated that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 437 of Cr.P.C seeking enlargement of bail before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala. It is further submitted that necessary report was made to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on 07.04.2020 as well as on 13.04.2020 to ensure that the petition be taken up on priority in light of urgency explained and also as it involved liberty of the petitioner and as he had made out a case for being enlarged on bail in the petition filed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

3. It is further submitted that on both occasions, i.e. 07.04.2020 and 13.04.2020, learned District Judge has refused to order that the bail petition be taken up for 3 consideration stating that it is not a case of extreme urgency.

2. The petitioner is seeking bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.47/2020 of Harihara Town Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 148, 307, 324 of IPC.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner/ accused No.1 and the complainant are running a liquor shop in the name and style as "Swapna Bar and Restaurant' in Harihara for a period of six years. The complainant asked the petitioner to submit the accounts pertaining to the business of the said bar and restaurant. In this background, the petitioner/accused No.1 along with his followers, went to the house of the complainant on 21.03.2020 at about 8.45 p.m. and picked up quarrel with him and abused him in filthy language and assaulted with 3 beer bottle on his face and head and caused bleeding injury.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the first informant/Police Officer attached to the respondent-police station along with other officials were on patrolling duty near a ware house situated close to Pratibha School at about 3.00 a.m., on 13.03.2020, they found these petitioners along with four others preparing to commit decoity. The petitioners were apprehended and a case was registered in Crime No.18/2020 of Roza police station for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and 3 they are not involved in any such offence much less the one now alleged against them. He submits that the petitioners are eking out their livelihood by driving the auto and also by doing coolie work. He submits that the petitioners are arrested on 13.03.2020 and since then they are in judicial custody and by imposing any conditions, they may be enlarged on bail.

2. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.76/2020 of Channapattana Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 324, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2020, while the police constable attached to Maddur police station was on duty at Nidaghatta Check Post, one white colour Innova car came to the checkpost and when the first informant and others started inspecting the vehicle, the driver of the said vehicle started hurling abusive words, snatched the lathi from the first informant and assaulted him with the said lathi on his hands and threatened to run over the vehicle and thereafter went towards Mysore. 3

2. The petitioner is seeking bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.64/2020 of Savanur Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Sections 269, 188, 149, 143, 353, 323 of IPC, pending on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Savanur in PC No.11/2020.

3. The complainant is the Tahsildar, Savanur. It is alleged that when the complainant along with his staff were on rounds within the Savanur Town to confirm and verify the compliance of Government Order of prohibition of public assembly in view of pandemic wreaking havoc, they received an information that some people have 3 gathered to offer Friday prayer at Jamma Masjid situated at Shukravarapete. The complainant along with the PSI and staff went to the spot and enquired the people gathered there and reminded them of the Government Order of prohibition of more than five members assembling at a place. It is alleged that the people gathered there started pushing and obstructing them from discharging their duty.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.22/2019 of Marikuppam Police Station. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against five accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 of IPC.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.06.2018 there was a quarrel between the victim namely Rahul and one Karthik, who is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. In the said quarrel, the said Karthik suffered bleeding injuries and in this regard, a case was registered in Marikuppam police station against Rahul and 3 his friends. Since then, there was enmity between Rahul and Karthik. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 14.09.2019 at about 9.45 p.m., Karthik along with other accused persons having formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted Rahul with deadly weapons and caused bleeding injuries to him.

This petition is heard through video conference.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.69/2020 of Bandepalya P.S., (Electronic City Sub Division) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(O), 420, 506 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the lockdown, he approached the Sessions Court by filing a petition through e-mail. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not taken up the matter on the ground that extreme urgency is not made out. Hence, the learned counsel seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.03.2020. It cannot be said that there is no urgency made 3 out. Hence, the jurisdictional Sessions Court is directed to take up the petition and dispose of the petition in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

2. The petitioner in Crl.P.NO.101035/2019 is accused No.1 in C.C.No.796/2018. The petitioner is :4: represented in this court as the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited.

3. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.100295/2019 is accused No.1 and accused No.3 and 5 in Crl.P.No.101035/2019 in C.C.No.796/2018.

4. The facts of the matter as per the petitioners in both the matters are as under:

4.1. It is stated that respondent No.1 Sri. Shashikant S. Timmapur had availed a loan of Rs.18,50,000/- in the year 2006 from ICICI Bank Limited ( 'the Bank' for short) by pledging various shares which he held in certain listed companies.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.

3. The Plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.22/2008 contending that:

RFA No.4150 OF 2013 -3- 3.1. The Plaintiff was a Class I Contractor registered with the Government of Karnataka, and he had maintained a good and immaculate record. 3.2. The Suit was filed regarding illegal recovery that the 1st Defendant has made from the Plaintiff's bills in respect of the work of Karwar Harbour Project i.e., "Construction of Southern Break Waters" near Karwar Head".

3.3. Government of Karnataka on 20.12.1990 through the Executive Engineer (Ports Division), Karwar invited applications for pre-qualification from eligible Class I Contractors for the work of construction of Break Waters (Rubble Mound Type) at Karwar Port for the work detailed therein.

2. The petitioner claims to be a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the activity of manufacture of pharmaceutical medicines. The respondents/workmen 12 were working in the establishment of the petitioner- management and they individually filed claim petitions under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Amendment Act, 1988 (Karnataka) contending that they were terminated from service without any valid reasons and sought for reinstatement with backwages and consequential benefits. Labour Court after analyzing the material evidence allowed the claim petitions as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the Management is before this Court.

2. The subject matter of the suit was property bearing CTS No.4601/B Ward No.1 of J.C.Nagar, Hubballi measuring 431 square yards with an old building thereon.

3. The plaintiff's case in a nutshell is as follows: The defendant is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property. For her legal necessity, she agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. On 22.11.2007, receiving advance R.F.A.No.100209/2015 4 consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- under three cheques drawn on UTI Bank, Hubballi, she executed a registered agreement of sale. Her daughter and grandchildren were also signatories to the said document. As per the schedule of payment agreed under the said document a further sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was to be paid within two months and balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale.

3. Appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be henceforth referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The subject matter of the suit was land bearing R.S.No.22 (Old R.S.No.22/3) measuring 3 acres 10 guntas situated within the limits of Waghawade village, Taluka District, Belagavi.

R.F.A.No.100230/2017 -3-

MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA for the PETITIONER(s) No. for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 08/05/2020 IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. Present application is preferred by the convict to release him on temporary bail for a period of 60 days on the grounds mentioned in the application.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I-11209016200088 of 2020 with Himmatnagar A -Division Police Station.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including the condition with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to seek remand of the petitioners; subject to the petitioner's right to oppose it.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 65(f) and 64(a) of the Prohibition Act for which FIR came to be registered at Prohibition C.R. No.11205035200180 of 2020 with Nakhtrana Police Station, Kutch-Bhuj.

3. Considering the quantity of contraband involved in the offence, as also the number of antecedents and the age of the accused and considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I-193 of 2019 with Dindoli Police Station, Dist: Surat.

3. Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

4. Hence, this application is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.I-193 of 2019 with Dindoli Police Station, Dist: Surat on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 116 and 81 of the Prohibition Act which FIR came to be registered at FIR Part-C C.R. No.11191038200118 of 2020 with Vatva Police Station.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including the condition with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to seek remand of the petitioner; subject to the petitioner's right to oppose it.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 65(A), 65(E) and 116(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act for which FIR came to be registered at Prohibition C.R. No.I-11207079200033 of 2019 with Halol Rural Police Station, Panchmahal.

3. Considering the fact the muddamal was recovered from the house of father of the applicant in absence of conscious possession with the petitioner and considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

2. It is very much clear from the FIR that accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.11,000/- from the deceased on account of birth of a child to the wife of the deceased and upon his reluctance to pay the amount demanded and his willingness to pay Rs.5,000/-, accused insisted for the full payment; they picked up the quarrel with the deceased and one of the accused Renuka Kunvar allegedly thrashed the head of the deceased against the wall resulting into brain hemorrhage to which the deceased eventually succumbed and died after hospitalization of seven days. The material has been collected and the evidence has been recorded and it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused persons have been identified by the auto-rickshaw driver in his statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code in whose auto- rickshw the accused persons commuted to the place of the deceased and thus the argument to the contrary that the accused persons remained unidentified in absence of TI parade has no substance.

2. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I -25 of 2019 with Mehlav Police Station, District Anand.

3. On consideration of the rival submissions, the statement of the victim prima facie appears to be very curious in accompanying the unknown persons; she does not seem to be revealing the full and correct facts in her statement and thus considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and in absence of an apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Baghel for the applicant submits that present application is filed after the charge-sheet. He submits that there is no recovery or discovery from the present applicant. He further submits that the mobile, which is alleged to have been noted in the alleged incident is not recovered from any of the accused persons. He also submits that since the charge-sheet is filed, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence of prosecution and the applicant is not likely to flee from the justice. He also submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He therefore, urges that the applicant may be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Page 1 of 4

2. Learned advocate Mr. Karia for the applicant submits that the applicant is arrested on the basis of statement of co-accused. Learned Advocate further submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He further submits that the applicant has two past criminal antecedents.

4. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:29:40 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/6081/2020 ORDER not press for further reasoned order.

THROUGH JAIL for the PETITIONER(s) No. for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 08/05/2020 IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Heard Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the State.

2. The applicant - convict has prayed for temporary bail on the ground of taking appropriate treatment at the private hospital. Considering the reason, we had called for the report from the learned APP. Learned APP had submitted the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Central Jail, which indicates that the applicant was referred to the Orthopaedic Department, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad lastly on 29.2.2020 and was also thereafter referred to Physiotherapy Rehab medicine on 5.3.2020. The certificate further indicates that the applicant refused admission in the hospital for MRI. The certificate also indicates that sonography Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:59:11 IST 2020 R/CR.A/148/2019 IA ORDER was conducted on 18.2.2020 and it is indicated that the applicant is regularly being examined and treated by physician and medical surgeon at jail dispensary.

Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2020:

1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Himanshu K. Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent - State.

2. The present application is filed by the applicant seeking extension of temporary bail for a period of 30 days on the ground of his own nasal surgery. The applicant is granted temporary bail by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2020 for a period of 10 days.

Page 1 of 2

Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:42:37 IST 2020

R/CR.MA/5981/2020 ORDER

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent State and perused the application.

2. On 06/05/2020, this Court has passed the following order:

"Being bail application in succession of previous application being CR.MA No.24178 of 2019, this application is required to be placed before the same Court (Coram: V M Pancholi, J.) as per settled legal position. Accordingly, needful shall be done."

3. Today, the matter has been placed with this Court again with the following administrative order and accordingly, this Court has taken up the matter:

"In view of the circular dt. 30.4.2020 the matter be again placed before Justice G R Udhwani.

Sd/- (07/05/2020) (R M Chhaya J) Under administrative order of Hon'ble'ble the Chief Justice dt. 7.2.2020"

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report registered with the Limkheda Police Station, Dahod district vide FIR No.11821035200189 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Jain, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. He has submitted that as per the case of the Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:18:59 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/6486/2020 ORDER prosecution the present applicant is husband of deceased Kailashben who committed suicide jumping in the well along with son Ravindra and daughter Shital. In that incident, Kailashben and Ravindra died whereas daughter Shital has survived. He has also submitted that the reasons mentioned for suicide are mentioned in FIR that the present applicant does not like the deceased and did not want to bring her back as he wanted to bring new wife. He has further submitted that age of deceased Kailashben as shown in FIR is 24 years whereas age of the applicant is 19 years and they had love marriage and out of the said wedlock they gave birth to two children. He has submitted that Aadhar Card clearly describes that the present applicant is born in the year 2001. Moreover, it is case of the prosecution that earlier about five months ago when the deceased Kailashben had gone to the house of the complainant where she complained the complainant i.e. her brother that present applicant had wish to bring new wife as he did not like her. He has submitted that as per FIR itself there is no recent incident which led the deceased for committing suicide. He has also submitted that deceased Kailashben and present applicant are belonging to different castes and community and they conducted love marriage and there is age difference which the complainant who is the brother of the deceased did not like and, therefore, out of vengeance, the false FIR is lodged. At last he has prayed that considering all these aspects and circumstances, present application may be granted.

[2] Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State by video conferencing.

[3] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with C.R.No. 11196027200074 of 2020 registered with Karelibaug Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

[4] Learned advocate for the applicant appearing by video conferencing submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence only on the basis of statement of co- accused and the quantum of liquor is valued at Rs.12,000/- only. He further submits that the nature of allegations are such for which Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:13:13 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/5228/2020 ORDER custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

3. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused have prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being I C. R. No. 11213015200127 registered with Gondal City Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 30.12.2019 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of two offences under Sections 379(A)(3) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:33:28 IST 2020 C/SCA/1836/2020 ORDER itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 28.1.2020 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of two offences Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:34:26 IST 2020 C/SCA/5912/2020 ORDER under Sections 379(A)(3) of the Indian Penal Code by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 11.12.2019 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(b) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of solitary offence under Sections 66-1B, 65-AE, 98(2) and 116-B of the Prohibition Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 22:34:07 IST 2020 C/SCA/52/2020 ORDER within the purview of definition under section 2(b) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

[2] Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State by video conferencing.

[3] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with C.R.No. 11216004200101 of 2020 registered with Dhaboda Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

[4] Learned advocate for the applicant appearing by video conferencing submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:24:44 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/6597/2020 ORDER from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.